PHILOSOPHY 440
FALL 2009
INSTRUCTOR: WILBURN
TAKE-HOME MIDTERM #1
Folks: This is the fist of three essay questions which I will post. Look for more after Friday,
Sept. 22nd. Remember that I will be out of town on Friday, Sept. 29th. So use this coming
week, which you’d ordinarily spend reading for class, writing your midterm instead.
When you have finished all three essays, email your results to rojobn@unlv.nevada.edu
with “PHIL 440 MIDTERM #1 FALL 2006” in the subject line. It is important that you do
this, so that your essay doesn’t end up in my junk mail file by accident.
Answer each of the following questions in essay form. Length is largely up to you (although a
reasonable length for each numbered essay (that is, all the parts of each essay taken together) is
approximately four pages (double-spaced, standard margins [1 inch on each side, 1 ½ inch top
and bottom], 12-point font). Due by 9:00 pm, Monday, Nov. 2nd.
1. Consider the article “Knowledge: Undefeated Justified True Belief” by Lehrer and
Paxson. Gettier has argued that the traditional account of knowledge is too weak. He has
argued, that is, that justification and truth are not sufficient by themselves to make belief
knowledge. Other philosophers have agreed with him Gettier, and have suggested additional
criteria for knowledge in order to give a more sufficient account of make makes for knowledge.
In the context of Gettier’s famous essay, describe and evaluate Lehrer & Paxson's proposal for
an additional criterion for distinguishing between knowledge and mere belief.
(1) First, quickly describe the Gettier problem, using your own example to illustrate it. Be sure
to preface this part of your essay with the phrase “It was a dark and stormy night for empirical
knowledge. . . .”
(2) Second, describe what Lehrer & Paxson's fourth condition of knowledge is. Detail at least
one thought experiment through which they seek to demonstrate the sufficiency of their account.
(3) Argue for a thesis of the form: “Lehrer & Paxson's proposal provides a satisfactory account
of knowledge” or of the form “Lehrer & Paxson's proposal does not provide a satisfactory
account of knowledge.” Obviously, explain your answer.
2. Consider the article “The Myth of the Given: Theory of Knowledge in America” by
Roderick Chisholm.” The Myth of the Given: Theory of Knowledge in America” by
Roderick Chisholm.
(a) What, on Chisholm’s account, makes a belief self-justifying? Give two examples of
foundational beliefs and two examples of non-foundational beliefs.
(b) Why does Chisholm claim that the phenomenalistic version of the doctrine of the given is
mistaken? Give an example of a non-phenomenal basic belief (on Chisholm’s account).
1
(c) What is argument that Chisholm considers to the effect that all beliefs involve comparison
with other beliefs?
(d) What is Chisholm’s response to the above-mentioned (in c) argument?
(e) In a paragraph or two, describe why you take Chisholm’s above-mentioned (in d) response to
be adequate (or inadequate).
3. Consider the article “Can Empirical Knowledge Have a Foundation” by Lawrence
Bonjour.
(a) What is the regress problem?
(b) Why does Bonjour write “The epistemic regress argument will prove to be a two-edged
sword, as lethal to the foundationalist as it is to his opponents.” In the course of answering this
question, refer to the argument schema below:
1.
2.
3.
Belief B has feature (f).
Beliefs having feature f are highly likely to be true.
Therefore, B is highly likely to be true.
(c) Why does Bonjour regard the foundationalist as trying to illegitimately have it both ways, as
it were, by positing semi-beliefs as his foundational states/entities?
(d) In relation to your answer to (c) above, consider the following passage:
“The basic idea, after all, is to distinguish two aspects of a cognitive state, its capacity to justify
other states and its own need for justification, and then try to find a state which possesses only the
former aspect and not the latter. But it seems clear on reflection that these two aspects cannot be
separated, that it is one and the same feature of a cognitive state, viz. its assertive content, which
both enables it to confer justification on other states and also requires that it be justified itself. If
this is right, then it does no good to introduce semi-cognitive states in an attempt to justify basic
beliefs, since to whatever extent such a state is capable of conferring justification, it will to that
very same extent require justification.”
Are you convinced by Bonjour’s reasoning here? In a paragraph or two, say why or why not.
2